F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone put Dave-B out of its misery, please.... 
(More seriously, do any of our American correspondents have a view on the likelihood of the -B surviving what will be further defence cuts in the next round of fiscal consolidation?)
S41
(More seriously, do any of our American correspondents have a view on the likelihood of the -B surviving what will be further defence cuts in the next round of fiscal consolidation?)
S41
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
ONLY PART of EXPLANATION at URL
Seriously, does anyone read anything or just mouthbreathheadlines? 
Here is only part of the text from the URL only above:
__________________
Pick wot youse prefer from this 'good, the bad - the ugly' report:
Joint Strike Fighter Total Cost Still Up in the Air
Here is only part of the text from the URL only above:
"...Lockheed and the F-35 JPO say. “Because of the high hours accumulated on this test article, this discovery does not affect current F-35B flying operations, nor is it expected to impact the U.S. Marine Corps’ ability to meet its Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in 2015.”
The cracks are described as “minor” by JPO and Lockheed officials and were discovered in late August. According to Lockheed and the JPO, the F-35B full-scale durability test article had accumulated more than 9,400h of equivalent flight usage—which equates to about 17 years of operations--when the cracks were discovered. Testing was halted on 29 September “to conduct root cause analysis on discovered bulkhead cracks,” the company and the JPO say...."
The cracks are described as “minor” by JPO and Lockheed officials and were discovered in late August. According to Lockheed and the JPO, the F-35B full-scale durability test article had accumulated more than 9,400h of equivalent flight usage—which equates to about 17 years of operations--when the cracks were discovered. Testing was halted on 29 September “to conduct root cause analysis on discovered bulkhead cracks,” the company and the JPO say...."
Pick wot youse prefer from this 'good, the bad - the ugly' report:
Joint Strike Fighter Total Cost Still Up in the Air
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 15th Oct 2013 at 20:50.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy tiger.
We can all read, we all know that we will end up buying it, we all know we will be paying for something that is unproven [in all aspects] and may consign our Air Forces effectiveness to the dustbin.
And we also know there's nothing we can do about the monumental waste of money [
] except come on here and post about it!
So and be dammed!
We can all read, we all know that we will end up buying it, we all know we will be paying for something that is unproven [in all aspects] and may consign our Air Forces effectiveness to the dustbin.
And we also know there's nothing we can do about the monumental waste of money [
] except come on here and post about it!So
and be dammed!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Is 'hotlilypadman' next to be offended? Dunno. Don't Care. So - anyway....
Singapore and the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter 18 Oct 2013 Mike Yeo
http://thediplomat.com/2013/10/18/si...hter/?all=true
So - anyway....Singapore and the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter 18 Oct 2013 Mike Yeo
"...With Singapore’s strategic limitations in mind, the F-35B would appear to be a very prudent option to consider. A fleet of easily-dispersed STOVL-capable assets capable of taking off fully loaded from a 168m (550ft) runway would ensure that the RSAF would be able to keep up combat air operations even without operational, full length runways in the event of an enemy first strike. Such a capability would certainly complicate any adversary's calculations in attempting a first strike to nullify Singapore's defenses.
With the recent announcement by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong that land-scarce Singapore will close one of its three tactical fighter bases to free up land for residential and industrial use in the near future, this would leave Tengah Air Base in the west and Changi Air Base (East), next to Singapore’s international airport in eastern Singapore, as the only bases to house the RSAF’s air combat aircraft. Both airbases will be expanded and upgraded to accommodate the relocation of RSAF aircraft and units currently based at Paya Lebar.
With the number of available runways in Singapore to be reduced by one, having an air combat asset on hand capable of STOVL operations would assume a greater importance in the mind of Singapore’s defense planners. It will be just one of many factors to consider, but the upgrades to Singapore’s existing fighter bases will likely include building thermally coated “lilypads” that would enable F-35Bs to land vertically without the hot exhaust gases damaging the tarmac.
However, Ng has also said that Singapore is in no hurry to make a decision, even if he has called the F-35 “a suitable aircraft to further modernise (Singapore’s) fighter fleet.”...
With the recent announcement by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong that land-scarce Singapore will close one of its three tactical fighter bases to free up land for residential and industrial use in the near future, this would leave Tengah Air Base in the west and Changi Air Base (East), next to Singapore’s international airport in eastern Singapore, as the only bases to house the RSAF’s air combat aircraft. Both airbases will be expanded and upgraded to accommodate the relocation of RSAF aircraft and units currently based at Paya Lebar.
With the number of available runways in Singapore to be reduced by one, having an air combat asset on hand capable of STOVL operations would assume a greater importance in the mind of Singapore’s defense planners. It will be just one of many factors to consider, but the upgrades to Singapore’s existing fighter bases will likely include building thermally coated “lilypads” that would enable F-35Bs to land vertically without the hot exhaust gases damaging the tarmac.
However, Ng has also said that Singapore is in no hurry to make a decision, even if he has called the F-35 “a suitable aircraft to further modernise (Singapore’s) fighter fleet.”...
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cracks are described as minor.
Not a problem if it's something like the cupholder that has the crack, but I imagine a bulkhead to be a little bit more crucial.
Last edited by gr4techie; 22nd Oct 2013 at 12:48.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read about how these aircraft can be dispersed and operate from even a public highway but is this really an option? We have seen first hand what happens when a country looses its ability to both Command and Control.
Surely Shirley.... loosing the ability to operate from a fully operational airfield is if not the end of the game, it must be the beginning of the end?
These things might be able to take off but without the proper maintenance, will they be serviceable and capable of operating away from a huge workshop with all the expertise needed to keep this beast in the sky?
I have been reading lots of good reports about the highly technical, very complex helmet, they claim the problems surrounding this 'hat' are now finally being resolved?
Surely Shirley.... loosing the ability to operate from a fully operational airfield is if not the end of the game, it must be the beginning of the end?
These things might be able to take off but without the proper maintenance, will they be serviceable and capable of operating away from a huge workshop with all the expertise needed to keep this beast in the sky?
I have been reading lots of good reports about the highly technical, very complex helmet, they claim the problems surrounding this 'hat' are now finally being resolved?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Only One Helmet for F-35 These Days
Helmet? What helmet. Only one now...
F-35 Program Stops Alternate Helmet Display Development 18 Oct 2013 Bill Carey
F-35 Program Stops Alternate Helmet Display Development | Aviation International News
F-35 Program Stops Alternate Helmet Display Development 18 Oct 2013 Bill Carey
"The F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) halted the development of an alternate helmet-mounted display system (HMDS) for the Joint Strike Fighter, signaling the resolution of a potentially serious technical complication the program faced. In September 2011, F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin awarded a contract to BAE Systems to develop an alternate HMDS after the Pentagon identified deficiencies with the original helmet system developed by Rockwell Collins and Elbit Systems of America. The HMDS is critical to flying the F-35, which was designed without a pilot’s head-up display.
The JPO announced on October 10 that it has decided to stop the alternate HMDS development to focus on bringing the second-generation, or “Gen 2,” helmet system that F-35 pilots are using for training and testing to a “fully compliant” Gen 3 standard. The Gen 3 HMDS will be introduced during F-35 low rate initial production lot 7 in 2016 and complete test and development the following year. The U.S. Marine Corps, which plans to declare initial operational capability of its F-35Bs in 2015, will start operations with an improved version of the Gen 2 helmet.
In a review of the F-35’s flight-test progress in 2011, the Department of Defense identified the HMDS as one of several program risks. It found that the helmet system was deficient in the areas of night-vision acuity, display jitter during aircraft buffeting and image latency from the F-35’s electro-optical distributed aperture system, which combined detracted from mission tasks and the use of the display as a primary flight reference. The Gen 3 helmet “will include an improved night vision camera, new liquid crystal displays, automated alignment and software improvements,” according to the JPO. It said that a “cost guarantee” made by Lockheed Martin, Rockwell Collins and Elbit resulted in a 12-percent reduction from the previous cost of the HMDS. The program will recoup $45 million in funds it had originally allocated for the development of the BAE Systems alternate helmet.
“During the past two years, the JPO and Lockheed Martin used a disciplined systems engineering approach and conducted dedicated helmet flight-tests to develop solutions to address the helmet’s technical challenges,” the program office said. “Improvements to the Gen 2 helmet are planned and being phased into production to support F-35 mission requirements.”
Lockheed Martin said more than 100 F-35 pilots have flown more than 6,000 sorties with the current helmet system. “The government’s decision to proceed exclusively with the principle helmet is indicative of their confidence in the helmet’s performance and the successful resolution of previously identified technical challenges,” stated Lorraine Martin, the company’s F-35 program executive vice president and general manager.
The Rockwell Collins HMDS joint venture with Elbit, formerly called Vision Systems International, has been replaced by a new organization, Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems. “We’re looking forward to the continued development and production of the third-generation F-35 HMDS, which will offer even greater capabilities while reducing overall cost for this critical program,” said Rockwell Collins CEO Kelly Ortberg."
The JPO announced on October 10 that it has decided to stop the alternate HMDS development to focus on bringing the second-generation, or “Gen 2,” helmet system that F-35 pilots are using for training and testing to a “fully compliant” Gen 3 standard. The Gen 3 HMDS will be introduced during F-35 low rate initial production lot 7 in 2016 and complete test and development the following year. The U.S. Marine Corps, which plans to declare initial operational capability of its F-35Bs in 2015, will start operations with an improved version of the Gen 2 helmet.
In a review of the F-35’s flight-test progress in 2011, the Department of Defense identified the HMDS as one of several program risks. It found that the helmet system was deficient in the areas of night-vision acuity, display jitter during aircraft buffeting and image latency from the F-35’s electro-optical distributed aperture system, which combined detracted from mission tasks and the use of the display as a primary flight reference. The Gen 3 helmet “will include an improved night vision camera, new liquid crystal displays, automated alignment and software improvements,” according to the JPO. It said that a “cost guarantee” made by Lockheed Martin, Rockwell Collins and Elbit resulted in a 12-percent reduction from the previous cost of the HMDS. The program will recoup $45 million in funds it had originally allocated for the development of the BAE Systems alternate helmet.
“During the past two years, the JPO and Lockheed Martin used a disciplined systems engineering approach and conducted dedicated helmet flight-tests to develop solutions to address the helmet’s technical challenges,” the program office said. “Improvements to the Gen 2 helmet are planned and being phased into production to support F-35 mission requirements.”
Lockheed Martin said more than 100 F-35 pilots have flown more than 6,000 sorties with the current helmet system. “The government’s decision to proceed exclusively with the principle helmet is indicative of their confidence in the helmet’s performance and the successful resolution of previously identified technical challenges,” stated Lorraine Martin, the company’s F-35 program executive vice president and general manager.
The Rockwell Collins HMDS joint venture with Elbit, formerly called Vision Systems International, has been replaced by a new organization, Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems. “We’re looking forward to the continued development and production of the third-generation F-35 HMDS, which will offer even greater capabilities while reducing overall cost for this critical program,” said Rockwell Collins CEO Kelly Ortberg."
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
VIDEO: VFA-101 and the F-35C
VFA-101 and the F-35C Published on Oct 3, 2013
"The VFA-101 Grim Reapers are the Navy's first F-35C carrier variant training squadron, based at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. Hear from one of the original Grim Reapers and current F-35 pilots about how the F-35C will continue the squadron's legacy."
Singapore will have to build special pads if it wants to VL F-35Bs routinely. And as for taking off in 550 feet with a full load, the author misses the fact that said road has to be moving at 25 knots into wind in order to do that.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It depends a bit on what you call a full load, internals only or with heavy weight munitions on the externals as well. Presumably Singapore reckon the jet can do what they need it to do based on the zero head wind and cross wind trials conducted during Development Test already.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Seoul May Order Unknown Quantity of F-35s Soonishlike
Oh dear 'lilypads' required at austere/ordinary bases for F-35Bs. I wonder if that 'SoulKindOfFeelingLand' will go for some of 'em also. 'concrete' gets a lookin in this story - that is why I jest. But anyway....
Exclusive: South Korea nearing decision to buy F-35 fighters 23 Oct 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa & Joyce Lee
Exclusive: South Korea nearing decision to buy F-35 fighters - chicagotribune.com
But anyway....Exclusive: South Korea nearing decision to buy F-35 fighters 23 Oct 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa & Joyce Lee
"WASHINGTON/SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea is nearing a decision to buy some Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets, but will likely keep its options open for a limited purchase of Boeing Co's F-15, sources familiar with the country's fighter competition said on Wednesday.
South Korean officials could announce their plans as early as November to secure the funding needed to ensure initial deliveries of the F-35 in 2017, according to multiple sources who were not authorized to speak publicly. They cautioned that the decisions were not yet final, and an announcement could still be postponed if the decision-making process hits a snag....
...South Korean officials have said they are examining a mixed procurement approach that could help Seoul maintain sufficient numbers of fighters in its fleet if the F-35 runs into further delays. They are also looking at scaling back the size of the order to 40 or 50 planes....
...South Korean officials are under pressure to commit to at least some F-35 purchases soon, given their own budget deadlines, and the need to start buying certain "long-lead" materials needed for any jets that would be delivered in 2017....
..."South Korea will need to decide on a plan as soon as possible in order to secure (the project's) budget for next year," said one source with direct knowledge of a task force set up last month to review options for the delayed fighter jet buy.
U.S. officials say South Korea must make a commitment by the end of 2013 to secure a place in the ninth low-rate production contract for F-35 jets and ensure delivery of the first planes in 2017.
The Pentagon needs to include any South Korean jets in an advanced procurement contract for "long-lead" items, such as titanium parts, said a source familiar with the F-35 program.
Four additional sources familiar with the South Korean process told Reuters that they expected an announcement by early November. Two other sources expected a decision by year's end.
South Korea's parliament must put in place concrete acquisition plans by December to ensure funding for an initial batch of jets, which would have to be ordered in 2014....
...One of the sources said Seoul was expected to commit to buying F-35s without specifying an exact number, leaving open the possibility of a mixed fleet...."
South Korean officials could announce their plans as early as November to secure the funding needed to ensure initial deliveries of the F-35 in 2017, according to multiple sources who were not authorized to speak publicly. They cautioned that the decisions were not yet final, and an announcement could still be postponed if the decision-making process hits a snag....
...South Korean officials have said they are examining a mixed procurement approach that could help Seoul maintain sufficient numbers of fighters in its fleet if the F-35 runs into further delays. They are also looking at scaling back the size of the order to 40 or 50 planes....
...South Korean officials are under pressure to commit to at least some F-35 purchases soon, given their own budget deadlines, and the need to start buying certain "long-lead" materials needed for any jets that would be delivered in 2017....
..."South Korea will need to decide on a plan as soon as possible in order to secure (the project's) budget for next year," said one source with direct knowledge of a task force set up last month to review options for the delayed fighter jet buy.
U.S. officials say South Korea must make a commitment by the end of 2013 to secure a place in the ninth low-rate production contract for F-35 jets and ensure delivery of the first planes in 2017.
The Pentagon needs to include any South Korean jets in an advanced procurement contract for "long-lead" items, such as titanium parts, said a source familiar with the F-35 program.
Four additional sources familiar with the South Korean process told Reuters that they expected an announcement by early November. Two other sources expected a decision by year's end.
South Korea's parliament must put in place concrete acquisition plans by December to ensure funding for an initial batch of jets, which would have to be ordered in 2014....
...One of the sources said Seoul was expected to commit to buying F-35s without specifying an exact number, leaving open the possibility of a mixed fleet...."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 23rd Oct 2013 at 23:38.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Options Available for F-35Bs Road Landings & TakeOffs
As for operating F-35Bs from unprepared pads/roads etc. that are suitable to take the weight of 'em.... are we not forgetting the various VL methods available to the F-35B including a creepy landing to mitigate effects on ordinary but suitable temporary surfaces [not forgetting your gardenroadvariety runny landing]? After all the scenario envisaged probably requires moving on once a site has been used, to go to anotherie.
Roadways are usually longer than 550 feet; whilst starting from intersections will give suitable direction options for takeoff into available wind. Nothing to it really.
Roadways are usually longer than 550 feet; whilst starting from intersections will give suitable direction options for takeoff into available wind. Nothing to it really.
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 23rd Oct 2013 at 23:45. Reason: Runny Editing TITle
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
TinFoil FUD Fools Us All in 'Soul Sacrifice' (it is a song silly) Land
Korea aviation plan ‘a mess’ 24 Oct 2013 Bill Sweetman *The author is senior international defense editor of Aviation Week.
Korea aviation plan ?a mess?-INSIDE Korea JoongAng Daily
"Fighter procurements are ponderous, complicated and subject to political interference.
Whatever you think of the outcome of South Korea’s F-X III fighter selection - now leaning toward the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - you cannot deny that it is a mess. The government first created a new agency to manage its defense procurements, set clear selection criteria for 60 new fighters and told the Defense Acquisition Program Administration to git’er done. DAPA picked the F-15SE, a decision that the government speedily set aside.
In accordance with a common definition of insanity, the luckless agency must now go through the same process in hopes of a different outcome. DAPA has caught one break: Eurofighter will be back for round two, so DAPA will not be tied across a sole-source barrel after throwing out binding offers presented in 2013.
Fighter procurements are ponderous, complicated and subject to political interference. The last-named attribute is a feature, not a bug: The price tag gets the Treasury involved, other military services have to vote, and the relationship between the supplier and its own national government will last longer than most marriages.
That said, Korea’s decision stands out because the government had tried to do better. After Dassault noisily bailed out of F-X1 in 2002, alleging that the fix had been in for a U.S. win from the outset, Korea tried to clean up its act by forming DAPA.
Whether or not it was based on a study of Sweden’s FMV, the Korean agency emerged with similar key features: civilian, not subordinate to the services, responsible to the whole of government, and including in its brief, domestic research and development. This would all have been fine had the government not responded to DAPA’s first controversial decision by folding like a cheap suit.
Overt pressure on the government came from 15 former air staff chiefs, who signed an emotional screed that not too subtly evoked a possible threat from F-35-armed Japan. There are a few problems with this sort of appeal.
Former generals have no more access to classified F-35 or threat data than the rest of us (or at least they should not). The Japanese threat might play to the man in the Seoul karaoke bar, but one does not need tinfoil headgear to suspect that. In the event of such a conflict, both sides’ F-35s would succumb to software maladies and stop working rather quickly. [QUE? Please explain.] And while the generals may all be motivated by pure patriotism, we know that if paying retired officers to influence decisions were illegal, the U.S. defense industry would have to move its business development activities to federal correctional facilities.
There may not have been any U.S. government pressure involved. And Barney might be a real dinosaur. Korea’s 60 near-term orders (the aircraft are needed to replace aging F-4s) are important for the F-35. As recent briefings have shown, the program needs 300 non-U.S. orders in the next 4-5 years to prime the production line and support an orderly ramp-up.
Failure to secure those orders may not kill the program, but they will make it harder to gain the sunlit uplands of building 150-plus per year and un-F-22-like costs. The Netherlands cutting its buy to 37 from 85, and the U.K. punting two-thirds of its nominally planned offtake into the long grass of the later 2020s, are not promising signs that the program’s founding partners are good for those early orders.
It would be understandable if Korea underestimated the importance of an F-35 order to Washington and assumed that an F-15 buy would be of equal validity. When F-X III was in its formative years in 2009, the Pentagon’s high sheriffs believed the F-35 program was blasting ahead toward initial operational capability this year. The Asian market was a sideshow, another dish to be gobbled up in due course.
Korea is in no position to ignore U.S. government warnings about the two nations’ strategic relationship. The next year or so will see how and whether Korea manages to reach a decision that meets the needs of its armed forces, its Treasury and its major ally, while restoring international confidence in the integrity of its procurement process.
Korea’s about-face is a tactical win for the F-35. However, the aircraft has yet to win an open, rules-based competition where all sides were expected to bid a fixed price. Most of its committed buyers, including the U.S. services, signed on when the aircraft was promised to be much earlier and cheaper than it is today. And given the repeated claims of advocates that the price of the F-35A is headed down into F-16 country, the fact that it was beaten on price by not only the massive twin-engine F-15 Eagle but also the Eurofighter Typhoon - from the people who make Aston Martins, Porsches and Lamborghinis - has to raise some eyebrows.
We’ll see what happens in the next open, rules-based, fixed-price, professionally executed competition. What? I’m not saying definitively that Barney can’t be some subspecies of theropoda."
Whatever you think of the outcome of South Korea’s F-X III fighter selection - now leaning toward the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - you cannot deny that it is a mess. The government first created a new agency to manage its defense procurements, set clear selection criteria for 60 new fighters and told the Defense Acquisition Program Administration to git’er done. DAPA picked the F-15SE, a decision that the government speedily set aside.
In accordance with a common definition of insanity, the luckless agency must now go through the same process in hopes of a different outcome. DAPA has caught one break: Eurofighter will be back for round two, so DAPA will not be tied across a sole-source barrel after throwing out binding offers presented in 2013.
Fighter procurements are ponderous, complicated and subject to political interference. The last-named attribute is a feature, not a bug: The price tag gets the Treasury involved, other military services have to vote, and the relationship between the supplier and its own national government will last longer than most marriages.
That said, Korea’s decision stands out because the government had tried to do better. After Dassault noisily bailed out of F-X1 in 2002, alleging that the fix had been in for a U.S. win from the outset, Korea tried to clean up its act by forming DAPA.
Whether or not it was based on a study of Sweden’s FMV, the Korean agency emerged with similar key features: civilian, not subordinate to the services, responsible to the whole of government, and including in its brief, domestic research and development. This would all have been fine had the government not responded to DAPA’s first controversial decision by folding like a cheap suit.
Overt pressure on the government came from 15 former air staff chiefs, who signed an emotional screed that not too subtly evoked a possible threat from F-35-armed Japan. There are a few problems with this sort of appeal.
Former generals have no more access to classified F-35 or threat data than the rest of us (or at least they should not). The Japanese threat might play to the man in the Seoul karaoke bar, but one does not need tinfoil headgear to suspect that. In the event of such a conflict, both sides’ F-35s would succumb to software maladies and stop working rather quickly. [QUE? Please explain.] And while the generals may all be motivated by pure patriotism, we know that if paying retired officers to influence decisions were illegal, the U.S. defense industry would have to move its business development activities to federal correctional facilities.
There may not have been any U.S. government pressure involved. And Barney might be a real dinosaur. Korea’s 60 near-term orders (the aircraft are needed to replace aging F-4s) are important for the F-35. As recent briefings have shown, the program needs 300 non-U.S. orders in the next 4-5 years to prime the production line and support an orderly ramp-up.
Failure to secure those orders may not kill the program, but they will make it harder to gain the sunlit uplands of building 150-plus per year and un-F-22-like costs. The Netherlands cutting its buy to 37 from 85, and the U.K. punting two-thirds of its nominally planned offtake into the long grass of the later 2020s, are not promising signs that the program’s founding partners are good for those early orders.
It would be understandable if Korea underestimated the importance of an F-35 order to Washington and assumed that an F-15 buy would be of equal validity. When F-X III was in its formative years in 2009, the Pentagon’s high sheriffs believed the F-35 program was blasting ahead toward initial operational capability this year. The Asian market was a sideshow, another dish to be gobbled up in due course.
Korea is in no position to ignore U.S. government warnings about the two nations’ strategic relationship. The next year or so will see how and whether Korea manages to reach a decision that meets the needs of its armed forces, its Treasury and its major ally, while restoring international confidence in the integrity of its procurement process.
Korea’s about-face is a tactical win for the F-35. However, the aircraft has yet to win an open, rules-based competition where all sides were expected to bid a fixed price. Most of its committed buyers, including the U.S. services, signed on when the aircraft was promised to be much earlier and cheaper than it is today. And given the repeated claims of advocates that the price of the F-35A is headed down into F-16 country, the fact that it was beaten on price by not only the massive twin-engine F-15 Eagle but also the Eurofighter Typhoon - from the people who make Aston Martins, Porsches and Lamborghinis - has to raise some eyebrows.
We’ll see what happens in the next open, rules-based, fixed-price, professionally executed competition. What? I’m not saying definitively that Barney can’t be some subspecies of theropoda."
Singapore already has road bases, apparently for aircraft up to F-16 size, according to this video...
...which supposedly has aeroplanes in it somewhere. If you can make it past the presenter, the F-16s are using some serious aerobraking.
Clearly the RSAF could use the F-35B from road bases in a STORVL mode. Which raises the interesting question of why they don't look at the F-35A. A little hotter on landing and take-off than an F-16, perhaps?
...which supposedly has aeroplanes in it somewhere. If you can make it past the presenter, the F-16s are using some serious aerobraking.
Clearly the RSAF could use the F-35B from road bases in a STORVL mode. Which raises the interesting question of why they don't look at the F-35A. A little hotter on landing and take-off than an F-16, perhaps?
Last edited by LowObservable; 24th Oct 2013 at 17:53.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine costs appear to be gradually decreasing...
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lrip...gines-contract
-RP
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lrip...gines-contract
-RP
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
F-35Bs on Ski Jumping Flat Decks aPlenty in South Korean Navy Future?
Probably not much to the S-3 resurrection / availability idea but the rest looks good for potential F-35B future sales to South Korea? Or am I dreamin'?
S. Korea Envisions Light Aircraft Carrier 26 Oct 2013 JUNG SUNG-KI
S. Korea Envisions Light Aircraft Carrier | Defense News | defensenews.com
S. Korea Envisions Light Aircraft Carrier 26 Oct 2013 JUNG SUNG-KI
"SEOUL — The South Korean Navy believes it can deploy two light aircraft carriers by 2036 and expand its blue-water force to cope with the rapid naval buildups of China and Japan, according to a Navy source.
The service has been exploring ways of securing light aircraft carriers based on an interim feasibility study, the source said.
“It’s a hope,” the Navy source said on condition of anonymity. “There are no fixed requirements at the moment, but we’ve been studying ways of launching light aircraft carriers over the next two decades.”
Rep. Chung Hee-soo of the ruling Saenuri Party revealed the contents of a program in a feasibility report last week.
“To cope with potential maritime disputes with neighboring countries, we need to secure aircraft carriers as soon as possible,” Chung, a member of the National Assembly’s Defense Committee, said during a confirmation hearing Oct. 11 for Adm. Choi Yoon-hee, new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “For more active international peacekeeping operations, our Navy should have carriers.”
According to Chung, the Navy envisions three phases:
- The first is to equip the second ship of the Dokdo-class landing platform helicopter ship (LPH) with a ski ramp to operate short-range or vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft.
The flight surface of the landing ship is already sprayed with urethane, which can withstand the heat created by the aircraft during operations.
Dokdo, with the addition of a ski ramp, could be deployed before 2019, according to the report, which suggests the Navy procure used VTOL jets from the US, UK and Spain if needed.
- Second, the Navy could build an amphibious assault ship, similar to the Spanish Navy’s Juan Carlos, before 2019.
- Finally, the service aims to build two 30,000-ton light aircraft carriers between 2028 and 2036, the report said. The carrier is to have specifications similar to the Italian aircraft carrier Cavour, which can support about 30 aircraft....
...The Navy also puts a priority on acquiring reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft. In particular, the service laid out plans to buy the Lockheed S-3 Vikings retired from front-fleet service aboard aircraft carriers by the US Navy in January 2009.
The service will purchase 18 S-3 jets and modify them into a new configuration meeting the Navy’s operational requirements. If adopted, it will be the first fixed-wing jet patrol aircraft operated by the South Korean Navy, which flies 16 P-3CK turboprop patrol aircraft.
“The S-3 introduction will offer a great opportunity for the ROK Navy to operate a carrier-based jet, as the service envisions deploying aircraft carriers in the future,” Kim Dae-young, a research member of the Korea Defense & Security Forum, a private defense think tank here. “From the operational perspective, the S-3 is expected to be used for various purposes, such as patrol, surface warfare and aerial refueling.”..."
The service has been exploring ways of securing light aircraft carriers based on an interim feasibility study, the source said.
“It’s a hope,” the Navy source said on condition of anonymity. “There are no fixed requirements at the moment, but we’ve been studying ways of launching light aircraft carriers over the next two decades.”
Rep. Chung Hee-soo of the ruling Saenuri Party revealed the contents of a program in a feasibility report last week.
“To cope with potential maritime disputes with neighboring countries, we need to secure aircraft carriers as soon as possible,” Chung, a member of the National Assembly’s Defense Committee, said during a confirmation hearing Oct. 11 for Adm. Choi Yoon-hee, new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “For more active international peacekeeping operations, our Navy should have carriers.”
According to Chung, the Navy envisions three phases:
- The first is to equip the second ship of the Dokdo-class landing platform helicopter ship (LPH) with a ski ramp to operate short-range or vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft.
The flight surface of the landing ship is already sprayed with urethane, which can withstand the heat created by the aircraft during operations.
Dokdo, with the addition of a ski ramp, could be deployed before 2019, according to the report, which suggests the Navy procure used VTOL jets from the US, UK and Spain if needed.
- Second, the Navy could build an amphibious assault ship, similar to the Spanish Navy’s Juan Carlos, before 2019.
- Finally, the service aims to build two 30,000-ton light aircraft carriers between 2028 and 2036, the report said. The carrier is to have specifications similar to the Italian aircraft carrier Cavour, which can support about 30 aircraft....
...The Navy also puts a priority on acquiring reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft. In particular, the service laid out plans to buy the Lockheed S-3 Vikings retired from front-fleet service aboard aircraft carriers by the US Navy in January 2009.
The service will purchase 18 S-3 jets and modify them into a new configuration meeting the Navy’s operational requirements. If adopted, it will be the first fixed-wing jet patrol aircraft operated by the South Korean Navy, which flies 16 P-3CK turboprop patrol aircraft.
“The S-3 introduction will offer a great opportunity for the ROK Navy to operate a carrier-based jet, as the service envisions deploying aircraft carriers in the future,” Kim Dae-young, a research member of the Korea Defense & Security Forum, a private defense think tank here. “From the operational perspective, the S-3 is expected to be used for various purposes, such as patrol, surface warfare and aerial refueling.”..."